[BinasiDombrs]

I like Romney. But honestly, this last speech of his has me worried:

Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential candidate, is calling for a century of American dominance in his first major foreign policy address, outlining plans to strengthen the U.S. military while rejecting multilateral institutions like the United Nations when necessary.

The former Massachusetts governor also condemns the isolationist policies supported by some conservative tea party members in a speech to be delivered Friday at The Citadel, an iconic military college in South Carolina. It comes as Romney has jumped back into the lead in national polling following Texas Gov. Rick Perry's disappointing performances in political debates...

"This century must be an American century. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world," Romney says. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ad-not-follow/

IMO - I don't think Romney actually believes this nonsense - he's just doing it to get Republican votes. Maybe he figures if he talks about God and world domination enough - the Christian Taliban will forget that he's the Mormon who established universal healthcare.

But still, it leaves me worried.

[Amorsesombabs]

I'm thinking the only thing you guys can appreciate that you'll get from Romney is a less Christian-centric approach to the Presidency. Everything else will pretty closely resemble everything else we've seen over the past decade.

[Casyimipist]

So do you think he actually believes this Americans-shall-inherit-the-earth crap?

[Aswdwdfg]

So do you think he actually believes this Americans-shall-inherit-the-earth crap?

Honestly no clue, I think the best comparison I've seen made to Romney was used car salesman. I'm not sure I trust him well enough to handle my own personal financial accounts, much less the rest of the country. Not because he's incompetent, but precisely the opposite. I think he's a master at his game, but I don't want the man in charge to be one out to play games.

[evammaUselp]

Honestly no clue, I think the best comparison I've seen made to Romney was used car salesman. I'm not sure I trust him well enough to handle my own personal financial accounts, much less the rest of the country. Not because he's incompetent, but precisely the opposite. I think he's a master at his game, but I don't want the man in charge to be one out to play games.

But at the very least he appears to be competent... which is more than I can say for the other candidates.

But then again - Obama is competent too, but that doesn't make him a good president.

[streMunford]

But at the very least he appears to be competent... which is more than I can say for the other candidates.

But then again - Obama is competent too, but that doesn't make him a good president.

I'm not certain the current concept the American society in general has of a "good president" is actually the right one in the grand scheme of things. Considering all the programs, czars, and special interests that now fall under the Executive branch, I'm not sure any human could realistically perform even "competently" in every facet of our Federal government. I personally think a successful future lies in scaling that down, and I mean a lot, on virtually every front. I believe this will be inevitable in fact, the only difference is whether it becomes a path we choose of our own free will or have it forced upon us in a way that eerily resembles the fall of the Soviet Union. We as a people are coming to the realization that there are not actually four freedoms that all of humanity are entitled to, it is much more likely to become two opposing two. I have to ask people, when has anyone felt really free from want or from fear? Then to what extent would you sacrifice your personal liberty to achieve such ends? Haven't our government's policies since then achieved nearly the precise opposite, or at the very least have had a null effect?

[TOPERink]

I'm not certain the current concept the American society in general has of a "good president" is actually the right one in the grand scheme of things. Considering all the programs, czars, and special interests that now fall under the Executive branch, I'm not sure any human could realistically perform even "competently" in every facet of our Federal government. I personally think a successful future lies in scaling that down, and I mean a lot, on virtually every front. I believe this will be inevitable in fact, the only difference is whether it becomes a path we choose of our own free will or have it forced upon us in a way that eerily resembles the fall of the Soviet Union. We as a people are coming to the realization that there are not actually four freedoms that all of humanity are entitled to, it is much more likely to become two opposing two. I have to ask people, when has anyone felt really free from want or from fear? Then to what extent would you sacrifice your personal liberty to achieve such ends? Haven't our government's policies since then achieved nearly the precise opposite, or at the very least have had a null effect?

I agree to an extent - but I do not think that that personal liberty necessarily contradicts freedom from want and fear. We can make sure kids are educated and don't go to bed hungry without restricting personal liberty - we can keep the streets safe without restricting freedom either.

But feeding kids and keeping the streets safe doesn't require assassination, warrantless wiretaps, gitmo, and torture.

[KignPeeseeamn]

I agree to an extent - but I do not think that that personal liberty necessarily contradicts freedom from want and fear. We can make sure kids are educated and don't go to bed hungry without restricting personal liberty - we can keep the streets safe without restricting freedom either.

But feeding kids and keeping the streets safe doesn't require assassination, warrantless wiretaps, gitmo, and torture.

But we can also educate our children absent the guiding hand of the Department of Education and feed them absent the Department of Agriculture should we wish to. The problem I feel is our reluctance to do so stems from the fear that releasing those government influences will cause the quality to go way down. I personally think most people do not recognize the more substantial influences on quality today and throughout our history are the effects of social consciousness, not government regulation. Things truly change for the better when the public outcry is strong enough. I think if we get our own government out of the way it creates substantial opportunity for entrepreneurial individual citizens to fill in that void. Look at the power, after all, of Wikileaks, where a private citizen took on our own government. I think people learned the wrong lesson from the whole affair, people look back to that and tend to cry traitor (albeit the fact that Assange is not a US citizen), what I think people need to realize is that if a private citizen can use social consciousness to put our own government on report, what lesser organization stands a chance at opposing a strong coalition of individual citizens seeking to promote moral and ethical business practices?

[duceswild]

There we'll have to disagree. I oppose the growing security apparatus, but I don't oppose government as a general principle. If the government needs to grow, and as a result cost more - in my eyes so be it. The main concern I have is not the growing SIZE of the government, but the growing militancy. Paying a few dollars more in taxes doesn't bother me - the ability to imprison or kill me without trial DOES.

The problem with putting child nutrition programs and charity in general in the hands of the private sector like the Tea Party advocates is the service these organizations provides relies entirely on how generous the population is feeling, and the economy. As we can see from the recession, many shelters around the country that used to be free had to start charging fees... or close down altogether. That's the issue with non-profit organizations. For-profit organizations are useless at saving money, all it does is add another layer of bureaucracy burning money before the service reaches those who need it.

[TughEmotteTug]

There we'll have to disagree. I oppose the growing security apparatus, but I don't oppose government as a general principle. If the government needs to grow, and as a result cost more - in my eyes so be it. The main concern I have is not the growing SIZE of the government, but the growing militancy. Paying a few dollars more in taxes doesn't bother me - the ability to imprison or kill me without trial DOES.

The problem with putting child nutrition programs and charity in general in the hands of the private sector like the Tea Party advocates is the service these organizations provides relies entirely on how generous the population is feeling, and the economy. As we can see from the recession, many shelters around the country that used to be free had to start charging fees... or close down altogether. That's the issue with non-profit organizations. For-profit organizations are useless at saving money, all it does is add another layer of bureaucracy burning money before the service reaches those who need it.

Now then would you accept an increasing level of taxation knowing that approximately one cent on the dollar is actually applied towards the program to which it was intended? It is an exaggeration for now but every time we "grow" the government it moves us closer and closer to that particular scenario.

Private industry by default is less bureaucracy than the Federal government, there's simply no getting around bureaucracy altogether, there will always be a person in charge of a program. What is a failed assumption is that government programs are of higher quality and more altruistic than the private sector. Both organizations are run by individuals, the only differences are what forces also compel ethical practices. I personally find the stronger forces do lie in the private sector. Simply because the ones from the government lack the influence of competition towards providing quality goods and services. It is up to the innovator how they receive revenues, but the advantage is they are always received through a voluntary exchange of money.

We tend to approach government from an "if I were king" perspective. What we forget is a person doesn't have to be king to make a difference for cause in this world. People do it all the time, but it takes the moral courage and passion to see it through during the most challenging of times.

[NumStulpata]

Now then would you accept an increasing level of taxation knowing that approximately one cent on the dollar is actually applied towards the program to which it was intended? It is an exaggeration for now but every time we "grow" the government it moves us closer and closer to that particular scenario.

Private industry by default is less bureaucracy than the Federal government, there's simply no getting around bureaucracy altogether, there will always be a person in charge of a program. What is a failed assumption is that government programs are of higher quality and more altruistic than the private sector. Both organizations are run by individuals, the only differences are what forces also compel ethical practices. I personally find the stronger forces do lie in the private sector. Simply because the ones from the government lack the influence of competition towards providing quality goods and services. It is up to the innovator how they receive revenues, but the advantage is they are always received through a voluntary exchange of money.

We tend to approach government from an "if I were king" perspective. What we forget is a person doesn't have to be king to make a difference for cause in this world. People do it all the time, but it takes the moral courage and passion to see it through during the most challenging of times.

To begin with, I don't see why a private organization would, "by default", have less bureaucracy than government. But what we are doing with these contracts is adding an ADDITIONAL LAYER of bureaucracy. We can already see this with other formerly government functions that we've privatized in the military. If private industry can't even manage the chow hall efficiently and provide quality service - that's hardly a prelude to trusting them with wounded veterans or starving children.

Its true you don't need to be a king to make a difference - but you don't need to be a billionaire CEO either. You can just be another underfunded agency trying to do an inglorious but important task. Not to mention many or perhaps most of the government agencies with bad reps are simply due to underfunding. We spend billions of dollars to build bigger and faster attack subs to sail around an ocean completely devoid of enemies - but we won't give NASA the funds to build a new space shuttle. We'll spend trillions on foreign wars, but wont give the VA money to meet the needs of the thousands of veterans returning home... and the proposed solution? To privatize these agencies? IMO - that's just an excuse to spend less money on them. Its no secret that the Republican Party hates the space program, and doesn't seem too fond of the VA either.

[asypecresty]

To begin with, I don't see why a private organization would, "by default", have less bureaucracy than government. But what we are doing with these contracts is adding an ADDITIONAL LAYER of bureaucracy. We can already see this with other formerly government functions that we've privatized in the military. If private industry can't even manage the chow hall efficiently and provide quality service - that's hardly a prelude to trusting them with wounded veterans or starving children.

Its true you don't need to be a king to make a difference - but you don't need to be a billionaire CEO either. You can just be another underfunded agency trying to do an inglorious but important task. Not to mention many or perhaps most of the government agencies with bad reps are simply due to underfunding. We spend billions of dollars to build bigger and faster attack subs to sail around an ocean completely devoid of enemies - but we won't give NASA the funds to build a new space shuttle. We'll spend trillions on foreign wars, but wont give the VA money to meet the needs of the thousands of veterans returning home... and the proposed solution? To privatize these agencies? IMO - that's just an excuse to spend less money on them. Its no secret that the Republican Party hates the space program, and doesn't seem too fond of the VA either.

I'm not sure if you fully comprehend my meaning by "privatized". I'm not even talking about adding another layer beneath that is funded by the Federal government, where you'd be correct in adding that layer lengthens bureaucracy (not to mention cost). What I'm referring to is private citizens doing private things because they feel ethically and morally compelled to do it. Their funding can come in a whole variety of innovative ways, one of the new and developing sources of capital can come from other large businesses and corporations seeking to become more image conscious, or private investors who feel strongly enough and capable enough to help an organization they feel important become successful, any department we have in our government can be replaced by single or multiple entities that perform similar functions but are privately managed and controlled. The only limitation is the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the base desire to perform these functions, plus why even bother since the government already does it anyways? I think this is an area that has much yet to be explored because I think the potential is high but the challenge is getting past one's fear of taking personal risks.

[kristloken]

I'm not sure if you fully comprehend my meaning by "privatized". I'm not even talking about adding another layer beneath that is funded by the Federal government, where you'd be correct in adding that layer lengthens bureaucracy (not to mention cost). What I'm referring to is private citizens doing private things because they feel ethically and morally compelled to do it. Their funding can come in a whole variety of innovative ways, one of the new and developing sources of capital can come from other large businesses and corporations seeking to become more image conscious, or private investors who feel strongly enough and capable enough to help an organization they feel important become successful, any department we have in our government can be replaced by single or multiple entities that perform similar functions but are privately managed and controlled. The only limitation is the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the base desire to perform these functions, plus why even bother since the government already does it anyways? I think this is an area that has much yet to be explored because I think the potential is high but the challenge is getting past one's fear of taking personal risks.

I think of the VA not as a "handout" or "porkbarrel" - but workers' compensation. Think about it - you work at Walmart. A dryer falls on your head. The building you were working in was filled with asbestos. What happens? Walmart, as your employer, is required to compensate you for any work-related injuries you sustained while employed with them.

You join the military. You enlisted with two legs. You are discharged with only one. You are a Federal employee - which means the Federal Government is directly responsible for compensating you for medical expenses, and income you lost because of your injury. Unless your leg grows back - that means the rest of your life.

If the Federal Government broke you, they are responsible for either fixing you, or compensating you as applicable - not parceling you off to a charity drive.

Measureman hit upon the woes of the VA better than I can elaborate towards effectively in another thread, it's really apart from this discussion so we'll put that aside for the moment. Let's just say for the moment if there's a giant hole in the bottom of a bucket that you carry a long distance, you don't go thirsty because you didn't put enough water in the bucket to begin with.

What is important is to touch on this "fear of greed" that you tend to exhibit. It's not atypical of one who comes from your philosophical point of view, but I do have some words about that.

Firstly, greed is not the sole motivating factor in free-market capitalism, personal success is, which can be measured in terms of fame, personal accomplishment, or the oh-so-abhorrid acquisition of wealth. The nice thing about personal success is that it is a known and predictable occurrence in humanity. You can know for a fact that businesses interested in being successful will work to provide quality goods and services at low cost when achievable, thus guaranteeing a regular in-flow of revenues. It is entirely possible that they can achieve this through immoral and unethical practices, but the advantage of the free markets is the penalty for this type of behavior can be quite severe, whereas government programs can escape relatively unscathed in many circumstances that would destroy a private business. A government contract is anything BUT a free market. Look at this forum. People bitch about incompetent, lazy, or selfish contractors all the time. There's a reason for it. Like I said earlier, if corporations can't even handle preparing my FOOD at the chow hall - why would I trust them to handle wounded veterans?

I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that every business in the world has to become a major corporation. There are so many varieties of businesses out there that looking at every one as if it were ENRON is akin to looking at the world through a straw. The limitations to what a business can do or what role it can play in our society are sheerly limited to the innovative capabilities of the entrepreneur. With the relatively free-flow of information and ideas in the world today I have great faith in the American Dream.

Measureman hit upon the woes of the VA better than I can elaborate towards effectively in another thread, it's really apart from this discussion so we'll put that aside for the moment. Let's just say for the moment if there's a giant hole in the bottom of a bucket that you carry a long distance, you don't go thirsty because you didn't put enough water in the bucket to begin with. That's entropy for you. Time, energy, and money will get wasted the farther the distance is. And right now, we're asking the VA to run a Marathon while carrying the water in a teacup. The VA was geared to support a smaller, peacetime military. Now after a 10 year war, with more manpower, and an astronomically larger number of seriously wounded veterans - we have failed to adjust their budget to match it.

What is important is to touch on this "fear of greed" that you tend to exhibit. It's not atypical of one who comes from your philosophical point of view, but I do have some words about that.

Firstly, greed is not the sole motivating factor in free-market capitalism, personal success is, which can be measured in terms of fame, personal accomplishment, or the oh-so-abhorrid acquisition of wealth. The nice thing about personal success is that it is a known and predictable occurrence in humanity. You can know for a fact that businesses interested in being successful will work to provide quality goods and services at low cost when achievable, thus guaranteeing a regular in-flow of revenues. It is entirely possible that they can achieve this through immoral and unethical practices, but the advantage of the free markets is the penalty for this type of behavior can be quite severe, whereas government programs can escape relatively unscathed in many circumstances that would destroy a private business.

I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that every business in the world has to become a major corporation. There are so many varieties of businesses out there that looking at every one as if it were ENRON is akin to looking at the world through a straw. The limitations to what a business can do or what role it can play in our society are sheerly limited to the innovative capabilities of the entrepreneur. With the relatively free-flow of information and ideas in the world today I have great faith in the American Dream. Fair enough. But let's say we do what you suggested - tear down the VA and replace it with 10 corporations. 5 of them are unsatisfactory. What do you do?

And what kind of system would you suggest? How long should the contracts be? Let's say we go for a yearlong contract. Great - that means we can give under-performers the boot quickly, but also means the infrastructure needs a total overhaul every year (Which is fine if that corporation was doing something easy and short term, like building toilets on a FOB, but not so much with something as huge and sensitive as Veterans Affairs). Unlike the toilet on the FOB, a disabled veteran isn't going to patiently go without food for a few months while the system unfucks itself.

So no - I'd prefer to have ONE agency that we can hold accountable, and tweak as necessary, not "ten or twenty" different corporations - all with their own political connections who'll do anything to hold on to their contract, no matter how much they suck at it.

[Xxedxevh]

I'm not sure if you fully comprehend my meaning by "privatized". I'm not even talking about adding another layer beneath that is funded by the Federal government, where you'd be correct in adding that layer lengthens bureaucracy (not to mention cost). What I'm referring to is private citizens doing private things because they feel ethically and morally compelled to do it. Their funding can come in a whole variety of innovative ways, one of the new and developing sources of capital can come from other large businesses and corporations seeking to become more image conscious, or private investors who feel strongly enough and capable enough to help an organization they feel important become successful, any department we have in our government can be replaced by single or multiple entities that perform similar functions but are privately managed and controlled. The only limitation is the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the base desire to perform these functions, plus why even bother since the government already does it anyways? I think this is an area that has much yet to be explored because I think the potential is high but the challenge is getting past one's fear of taking personal risks.

I'm a little confused by your idea, here.

Private citizens doing what they feel ethically and morally compelled to do.
- Okay, first, what is stopping them now?
- Second, they would obviously not be legally compelled to do so...so, what if the ethical and moral does not equal the legal obligations of the government to those wounded in the line of duty? Private citizens are already free to give and do whatever they feel ethically and morally compelled to do. The argument seems to be that since the govt. is doing it, they no longer feel responsible...but if the govt. didn't do it, then they would. Not sure the numbers of homeless/unemployed vets can support that idea.

[Ferrotoral]

I'm a little confused by your idea, here.

Private citizens doing what they feel ethically and morally compelled to do.
- Okay, first, what is stopping them now?
- Second, they would obviously not be legally compelled to do so...so, what if the ethical and moral does not equal the legal obligations of the government to those wounded in the line of duty? Private citizens are already free to give and do whatever they feel ethically and morally compelled to do. The argument seems to be that since the govt. is doing it, they no longer feel responsible...but if the govt. didn't do it, then they would. Not sure the numbers of homeless/unemployed vets can support that idea.

You've pretty much hit on the first point with your second, because there is no demand to create such an organization (or one conducting risk analysis would deem the level of demand to be insufficient for market entry), there is no potential market in it.

To the second part you're absolutely right, if we just dropped the VA completely tomorrow the backlash would be absolutely horrible. We can see that clearly from all the retirement controversy going on recently. I can't envision that abrupt a change being made over a short period of time. I can picture in my head a scenario where gradual changes are made with a desired end-state in mind where we continually re-evaluate what we expect the VA to do for us and turn over certain functions to the private sector, the only challenges to this stem from that it requires risk-taking entrepreneurs to step in to assume that role, you can't just create the Steve Jobs and the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world out of thin air.

[Gulauur]

I think of the VA not as a "handout" or "porkbarrel" - but workers' compensation. Think about it - you work at Walmart. A dryer falls on your head. The building you were working in was filled with asbestos. What happens? Walmart, as your employer, is required to compensate you for any work-related injuries you sustained while employed with them.

Cutting down to spare the audience visually.

On the size of the standing armed forces argument you are right in a sense, the demands of our current concept of a military are far too high for what it is provided, not to mention the infrastructure of it has become so large and so wasteful that the efficiency of every dollar going into it has been drastically reduced. That leaves us essentially with two choices we can make, increase the spending to feed a larger army (like you were implying) or reduce the size of that army. Veterans benefits of course are a bit tricky, as people of course live longer and thus more individuals draw benefits for longer.

I come at this problem (of spending in general) from two fronts, where we are now and where I think it can eventually be in the future that will allow us to resolve so many of these issues today. Like I said to MM previously, I cannot expect to completely eliminate the VA overnight, a controversial but arguably necessary approach would be a phased one. I'd expect in that circumstance every single change would come painfully. But I also think it's something we would be better off doing in the long run.

Your point is well-stated in the "due compensation" of veterans who've worked for the government. I'd tend to agree with you if it described the breadth and the depth of what the VA does. That's simply not the case either. The VA, under good intentions I'm certain, chose to take upon a role for itself to be a whole lot more than that, and I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say I appreciated receiving many of these extra benefits in my own life. That's not the same thing as saying I feel I personally deserved all of them. I think that would be an excellent place to start.

Government contracting vs free markets is a whole subject that could go on for days. Realistically I think it's important to distinguish the concepts of free market capitalism from corporatism because many of your arguments against the former are generally more applicable to the latter (does it surprise anyone to hear me say we live in a corporatist world today)? For the record I'm no more a fan of corporatism than you are doubtlessly. That in itself has developed so much momentum I don't see an immediate solution that doesn't severely impact individual civil liberties.

[Vulkanevsel]

Cutting down to spare the audience visually.

On the size of the standing armed forces argument you are right in a sense, the demands of our current concept of a military are far too high for what it is provided, not to mention the infrastructure of it has become so large and so wasteful that the efficiency of every dollar going into it has been drastically reduced. That leaves us essentially with two choices we can make, increase the spending to feed a larger army (like you were implying) or reduce the size of that army. Veterans benefits of course are a bit tricky, as people of course live longer and thus more individuals draw benefits for longer.

We made the decision to start a worldwide war effort. I don't agree with it, but the decision has been made. Even if we pulled out of Iraq Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya tomorrow - the damage has already been done. And frankly, it would be a crime to expand the size and role of the military, and not follow through and expand the VA to cover all of that.

Unfortunately - there's a pattern to this. We go to war, and then near the end decide to cut spending - and guess who feels the brunt of it - the Vets.

I come at this problem (of spending in general) from two fronts, where we are now and where I think it can eventually be in the future that will allow us to resolve so many of these issues today. Like I said to MM previously, I cannot expect to completely eliminate the VA overnight, a controversial but arguably necessary approach would be a phased one. I'd expect in that circumstance every single change would come painfully. But I also think it's something we would be better off doing in the long run. Why? Why is that necessary? Cut back on the wars, and with time, the burden on the VA will also decrease. Again, to make any cuts to vet benefits isn't just controversial - its criminal. If we didn't want to spend money on veterans, we shouldn't have sent them to war to begin with.

Your point is well-stated in the "due compensation" of veterans who've worked for the government. I'd tend to agree with you if it described the breadth and the depth of what the VA does. That's simply not the case either. The VA, under good intentions I'm certain, chose to take upon a role for itself to be a whole lot more than that, and I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say I appreciated receiving many of these extra benefits in my own life. That's not the same thing as saying I feel I personally deserved all of them. I think that would be an excellent place to start. When I was transitioning out, we got a lecture from an attorney from American Legion - he said this is the mentality that the DoD tries to push on us - that we don't "deserve" these benefits. Why? He called it a conflict of interest. They don't educate you and me on what we are entitled to, they encourage us to feel that we somehow don't deserve it - but lets remember - this system exists for a reason. Because Veteran Advocacy groups have spent almost a hundred years fighting Congress and the Military tooth and nail for the welfare of veterans. The politicians and the generals would throw us on the street in a heartbeat, but now, there are safeguards in place to prevent that from happening.
Government contracting vs free markets is a whole subject that could go on for days. Realistically I think it's important to distinguish the concepts of free market capitalism from corporatism because many of your arguments against the former are generally more applicable to the latter (does it surprise anyone to hear me say we live in a corporatist world today)? For the record I'm no more a fan of corporatism than you are doubtlessly. That in itself has developed so much momentum I don't see an immediate solution that doesn't severely impact individual civil liberties. Agreed, and any large system is going to have corruption and waste. But IMO, the true reason certain politicians advocate privatizing the VA is a way to save money. We saw this with the "privatization" of mental asylums - we get tired of funding something, we use the glories of "private industry" to shove the problem under the bed and ignore it.

[reiseebup]

We made the decision to start a worldwide war effort. I don't agree with it, but the decision has been made. Even if we pulled out of Iraq Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya tomorrow - the damage has already been done. And frankly, it would be a crime to expand the size and role of the military, and not follow through and expand the VA to cover all of that.

Unfortunately - there's a pattern to this. We go to war, and then near the end decide to cut spending - and guess who feels the brunt of it - the Vets.



Why? Why is that necessary? Cut back on the wars, and with time, the burden on the VA will also decrease. Again, to make any cuts to vet benefits isn't just controversial - its criminal. If we didn't want to spend money on veterans, we shouldn't have sent them to war to begin with.

I knew I was venturing into "Pandora's Box" with the VA example, but we'll continue because if people can become comfortable with the potential notion that even the VA could become privatized, very few functions currently performed by the government would be left off the table.

Criminal I'd say is a bit far-fetched, controversial maybe, I've never personally been one to promote an entitlement mentality. However, I do feel strongly that we have "rights" to what has been contractually agreed upon, as such, I'm with you in stating it is unfair and possibly even in some cases illegal to remove the government-provided benefits we've been promised without something significant and equitable in its place. What isn't necessarily the case is that it is the sole responsibility of the government to provide all of these benefits for the future. It could be something as simple as rewording simple contracts i.e. getting precisely what you signed up for (even though it was less than your predecessors) or it could be something as complex as outsourcing VA functions to civilian enterprises in a near-seamless manner through a complex process of experts with strong credentials and business acumen gradually assuming those functions privately (it's funny you mentioned the American Legion, I was contemplating that organization in particular as a potential source of sponsorship of such an organization).

As far as cutting spending is concerned, that's simple business common sense when solvency is placed in distress. Even under the Keynesian model you favor there is a period of building a surplus during the boom phase of the cycle, which isn't possible if we forget to close the floodgates and let things run rampant (the part of Keynesian economics people seem to have "forgot" for quite some time in our history.)

In short, I think the solution could be a gradual combination of both, plus the fact that privatizing these functions adds the potential for symbiotic competition to arise, doubling the job creation potential as compared to a government-based monopoly. You're right about scaling back the overseas military industrial complex, that will be a significant positive step in the right direction for curbing our excessive government spending, with the added bonus of creating significant opportunities for global partnerships if the current overseas relations suffering from blowback become repaired gradually. I wish I knew enough personally to go into all the details of how these types of transitions would occur, but I can say at the very least I can imagine how such a thing might be possible with the right individuals driving the process.

[ReggieRed]

I knew I was venturing into "Pandora's Box" with the VA example, but we'll continue because if people can become comfortable with the potential notion that even the VA could become privatized, very few functions currently performed by the government would be left off the table.

...Because the VA is one of the few institutions that hasn't been poisoned by the likes of Haliburton.

Criminal I'd say is a bit far-fetched, controversial maybe, I've never personally been one to promote an entitlement mentality. However, I do feel strongly that we have "rights" to what has been contractually agreed upon, as such, I'm with you in stating it is unfair and possibly even in some cases illegal to remove the government-provided benefits we've been promised without something significant and equitable in its place. What isn't necessarily the case is that it is the sole responsibility of the government to provide all of these benefits for the future. It could be something as simple as rewording simple contracts i.e. getting precisely what you signed up for (even though it was less than your predecessors) or it could be something as complex as outsourcing VA functions to civilian enterprises in a near-seamless manner through a complex process of experts with strong credentials and business acumen gradually assuming those functions privately (it's funny you mentioned the American Legion, I was contemplating that organization in particular as a potential source of sponsorship of such an organization). Which is what puzzles me - you say you oppose corporatism - but that's exactly what we'd get. Why would the result of this be any different than privatizing chow halls, or construction, or security? It's been a total disaster every time we've tried it - how would it end up any better this time around?
As far as cutting spending is concerned, that's simple business common sense when solvency is placed in distress. Even under the Keynesian model you favor there is a period of building a surplus during the boom phase of the cycle, which isn't possible if we forget to close the floodgates and let things run rampant (the part of Keynesian economics people seem to have "forgot" for quite some time in our history.) Which is great - but as I said earlier, we already made the decision to go to war across the world. Which means its time to pay the piper.
In short, I think the solution could be a gradual combination of both, plus the fact that privatizing these functions adds the potential for symbiotic competition to arise, doubling the job creation potential as compared to a government-based monopoly. You're right about scaling back the overseas military industrial complex, that will be a significant positive step in the right direction for curbing our excessive government spending, with the added bonus of creating significant opportunities for global partnerships if the current overseas relations suffering from blowback become repaired gradually. I wish I knew enough personally to go into all the details of how these types of transitions would occur, but I can say at the very least I can imagine how such a thing might be possible with the right individuals driving the process. Which is exactly why I remain doubtful. Why take a system that for the most part works, and replace it with a model that has been shown time and time again to fail miserably?

[dAy2EWlg]

I knew I was venturing into "Pandora's Box" with the VA example, but we'll continue because if people can become comfortable with the potential notion that even the VA could become privatized, very few functions currently performed by the government would be left off the table.

...Because the VA is one of the few institutions that hasn't been poisoned by the likes of Haliburton.

Criminal I'd say is a bit far-fetched, controversial maybe, I've never personally been one to promote an entitlement mentality. However, I do feel strongly that we have "rights" to what has been contractually agreed upon, as such, I'm with you in stating it is unfair and possibly even in some cases illegal to remove the government-provided benefits we've been promised without something significant and equitable in its place. What isn't necessarily the case is that it is the sole responsibility of the government to provide all of these benefits for the future. It could be something as simple as rewording simple contracts i.e. getting precisely what you signed up for (even though it was less than your predecessors) or it could be something as complex as outsourcing VA functions to civilian enterprises in a near-seamless manner through a complex process of experts with strong credentials and business acumen gradually assuming those functions privately (it's funny you mentioned the American Legion, I was contemplating that organization in particular as a potential source of sponsorship of such an organization). Which is what puzzles me - you say you oppose corporatism - but that's exactly what we'd get. Why would the result of this be any different than privatizing chow halls, or construction, or security? It's been a total disaster every time we've tried it - how would it end up any better this time around?
As far as cutting spending is concerned, that's simple business common sense when solvency is placed in distress. Even under the Keynesian model you favor there is a period of building a surplus during the boom phase of the cycle, which isn't possible if we forget to close the floodgates and let things run rampant (the part of Keynesian economics people seem to have "forgot" for quite some time in our history.) Which is great - but as I said earlier, we already made the decision to go to war across the world. Which means its time to pay the piper.
In short, I think the solution could be a gradual combination of both, plus the fact that privatizing these functions adds the potential for symbiotic competition to arise, doubling the job creation potential as compared to a government-based monopoly. You're right about scaling back the overseas military industrial complex, that will be a significant positive step in the right direction for curbing our excessive government spending, with the added bonus of creating significant opportunities for global partnerships if the current overseas relations suffering from blowback become repaired gradually. I wish I knew enough personally to go into all the details of how these types of transitions would occur, but I can say at the very least I can imagine how such a thing might be possible with the right individuals driving the process. Which is exactly why I remain doubtful. Why take a system that for the most part works, and replace it with a model that has been shown time and time again to fail miserably?